[talk-au] Routing through a park that doesn't have actual paths

Jonathon Rossi jono at jonorossi.com
Thu Feb 1 04:35:38 UTC 2018

> Exists for areas of concrete too
Yes true, including car parks which usually don't have footpaths.

> I think if you tag an area as pedestrian, or as steps .. routes will not
go across them.
Did you mean to say will or will not go across them? And how would you tag
an area as "pedestrian"?

Sounds like the general consensus is that routing is "broken" and we
continue mapping as you'd expect, and there are no real good workarounds.


On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 6:48 AM Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

> A 'well known' routing problem.
> Exists for areas of concrete too ... I think if you tag an area as
> pedestrian, or as steps .. routes will not go across them.
> For an area of steps the bottom, top and sides can have ways that are
> paths ... that gets around the routing issue.
> In the longer term routes should solve the problem .. they don't see it as
> an urgent issue as there are not many people using pedestrian routing.
> On 01-Feb-18 01:45 AM, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
> It appears that this is a long standing enhancement request for
> GraphHopper:
> https://github.com/graphhopper/graphhopper/issues/82
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:17 AM Jonathon Rossi <jono at jonorossi.com> wrote:
>> To clarify, both Google Maps and Strava routing can't do this either, I
>> was trying to work out if OSM could do this.
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:10 AM Jonathon Rossi <jono at jonorossi.com>
>> wrote:
>>> In the past I've mapped exactly what I've surveyed on the ground in
>>> local parks, however I've recently been using the OSM routing feature
>>> rather than from other services and I've discovered it can't route directly
>>> across a park that is just grass.
>>> In the following example, I've mapped:
>>> - the short grass track (eastern side) that council are likely
>>> inadvertently making each time they bring vehicles through the gate to mow
>>> the park (the rest of the park boundary has timber bollards),
>>> - trails that lead from the Greater Glider Conservation Area out into
>>> the park, the small bit of the "Trail Circuit" in the park isn't actually a
>>> well defined path it just opens up but it isn't grass and the amount of
>>> trees keep it path like
>>> - other well formed paths that lead out to roads
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=-27.54259%2C153.22173%3B-27.54227%2C153.21904#map=18/-27.54200/153.22056
>>> The OSM Wiki states:
>>> > Ways (highway=path or highway=footway) leading into a park from a
>>> road, should always be connected to the road for routing purposes. It's
>>> debatable whether they should connect to the park area with a shared node,
>>> or cross over the polygon without connecting. TODO discuss
>>> > (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=park)
>>> If a park is just a big grass area (with maybe a few obstacles like a
>>> playground) then it feels like the responsibility of the routing engine to
>>> just do this (maybe with an access tag to say it is okay to do so). It
>>> feels wrong for us mappers to map a "grass" path through the park from each
>>> entrance that we feel is a main thoroughfare.
>>> Am I missing something, have others "fixed" this problem elsewhere?
>>> Jono
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing listTalk-au at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20180201/982dc084/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-au mailing list